Walker-Warnock Debate
-
-
@Mik said in Walker-Warnock Debate:
It is pretty much impossible to get any real sense of how it went from Twitter.
Phil Kent is a left leaning source for the AJC. He is generally a friend to the left. If he’s scoring it for Walker, Walker won.
Patricia Murphy is/was an editor for The Daily Beast…
Even more well known Lib pundits are admitting it in a backhanded way. MSNBC hosts have stated Walker didn’t do as horribly as they expected… With the stuff coming out about Warner’s church, all Walker had to do was hold his own, it sounds like he did better than that. Even the badge thing that’s being shown out of context was a win for Walker.
-
I was worried he'd blow it. Warnock is a black preacher and those guys love to talk.
If Walker held his own, he won.
-
I was worried he'd blow it. Warnock is a black preacher and those guys love to talk.
If Walker held his own, he won.
-
And their second debate
"Warnock was introduced along with Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, while Walker was represented by an empty lectern."
-
Right now, Walker is within margin of error, after every broadside they could fire.
Kemp is up almost double-digits and we're starting to see the economy really starting to shift voters.
Wonder if Georgia voters will vote enough split tickets to put Warnock back in? I've got my doubts. I do think either way, it's going to be close.
-
And their second debate
"Warnock was introduced along with Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, while Walker was represented by an empty lectern."
@taiwan_girl said in Walker-Warnock Debate:
And their second debate
"Warnock was introduced along with Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, while Walker was represented by an empty lectern."
There was never an agreement to a second debate, and not any need.
-
Wonder who is financing the Libertarian?
-
Who won?
Warnock - 33%
Walker - 34.4%
Undecided - 32.6% -
-
@Jolly said in Walker-Warnock Debate:
Awful lot of undecideds.
It's quite possible they're thinking "Do I really have to vote for one of these arseholes?", which seems like a pretty sensible question, all things considered.
-
It would be nice to zoom in on where in the process the sane people get filtered out. It's fun to lament the crazies we eventually have to choose between, but that's not the part of the process that admits to a solution.
One might discover that there are no sane people running, and everybody looks insane when put under the microscope of important public office.
